Appeal via IAS dismissed what to do next?

Ashley1104

Hi All,

I received parking charges for a car park which had a 3 hour max stay where I used to park for work but did not realise! There are signs but as I parked there for months didn't think they had a time limit, which is my error. The parking notices were issued through the post using a ANPR standards. However they were received by me months after the actual dates of parking! I did my research and discovered that the notices had to be given to be received by the keeper of the vehicle within 14 days occurring after the day of parking, which is a procedure that wasnt carried out. I've been through the appeals process via IAS because of this (however did not confirm if I was the driver), but have been told that it is invalid that they didn't send it on time and they have dismissed my appeal. They have said that I need to pay up £200 within the next 14 days or it will be taken further. I am a student nurse with little money, so do not have the means to pay such a price. Does anyone know if it will definitely be taken and also if it did I to court what they would expect me to do? Also are they in the wrong for not sending it within time?

Thanks in advance for any advice you give

Umkomaas

Does anyone know if it will definitely be taken and also if it did I to court what they would expect me to do? Also are they in the wrong for not sending it within time?

Without telling us who the parking company is, what sort of response are you anticipating?

A bit like asking us are their burgers or pizzas or fried chicken any good, without knowing which food outlet you’re asking about.

bergkamp

Where did you do your research ?

Coupon-mad

You need to read the NEWBIES thread at the top of the forum. It tells you how to search & find out how likely any PPC is to try court (or not) and how to defend, if they do.

I did my research and discovered that the notices had to be given to be received by the keeper of the vehicle within 14 days occurring after the day of parking, which is a procedure that wasnt carried out.

Wrong. The NEWBIES thread tells you that PPCs do not *have to* follow the POFA deadlines. You were never going to win at IAS so sit tight and read the info on the forum.

beamerguy

Ashley ...... the IAS is a major scam

The IAS, operated by the IPC and set up by Gladstones
solicitors who are a incompetent bunch of fools.

This scam involves parking companies who in turn
scam the public

As asked, who is the parking scammer

You will get all the help you need, you are being scammed

pappa_golf

Ashley1104

Sorry I didn't say it was through vehicle control services! Didn't expect replies so quickly! It says they are an accredited member of the IPC. The IPC code of practice states in cases of ANPR types a notice has to be given to be received 14 days starting the day after the alleged date of offence! That's what I was stating in my appeal! So just trying to see if I'm in the right as they didn't follow procedure?

nosferatu1001

It’s utterly and completely irrelevant what YOu say. The IAS will NOT rule fairly. 5 minutes google tells you that. Theynreject over 83% of all appeals.

Coupon-mad

You will get a fairer hearing in small claims if VCS try, and we help posters to win 99% of the time.

beamerguy

Ashley1104 wrote: »

Sorry I didn't say it was through vehicle control services! Didn't expect replies so quickly! It says they are an accredited member of the IPC. The IPC code of practice states in cases of ANPR types a notice has to be given to be received 14 days starting the day after the alleged date of offence! That's what I was stating in my appeal! So just trying to see if I'm in the right as they didn't follow procedure?

Once upon a time, a government minister was duped into
thinking that the IPC/IAS should be accredited to operate
a fair scheme in the parking industry ?
What an idiot he was ????
That scheme turned into a scam and they recruited parking
companies to join in the scam .... VCS is one of those

The IPC/IAS is complete rubbish along side the inventors
Gladstones solicitors.

Because the IAS is complete junk, it really does not
matter what they say, just ignore them

What will happen is you will get the next stage of the scam
and that is drugged up debt collectors who tell lies, pretend
they are important when in reality they belong in the sewers
and you will IGNORE THEM because they have 100%
ZERO POWER .... Seriously ZERO POWER ... Timwasters

If VCS want to take it further, they will probably instruct
BWLegal and every time they do, we laugh and so do the
courts ..... this is just one of the jokes
VCS spend over £1,000 chasing bogus £100 parking charge at Albert Street, Birmingham

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/vcs-spend-over-1000-chasing-bogus-100.html


These parking companies use incompetent legals but
fortunately for you, there are 2 superb REAL solicitors on
this forum and many experienced members like coupon-mad

Do not panic, it's par for the course on this forum and you
will be helped every step of the way

Redx

it is POFA2012 that says an NTK must be delivered in 14 days following an ANPR capture (or if it was a handheld camera is also seen to be acceptable by all and sundry)

so it is the law that states this, PROVIDING they have followed POFA2012 and providing this is about people in england and wales, not scotland or northern ireland

so if they fail to follow POFA2012 then that side of it falls by the wayside, in which case to hold a keeper liable they have to prove that the keeper and driver are one and the same person

most if not all IPC companies fail to adhere to pofa2012, so a keeper should be able to win in court using pofa2012 as a part of their defence

if the drivers details are know by the PPC, then the 14 day rule etc is irrelevant as that law does not apply to drivers , hence why we tell people not to blab about who was driving

they have 6 years to take a driver to court because a driver is always liable

they have 6 years to take a keeper to court but must prove they stuck to pofa2012 to make the keeper liable